Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did There

For discussions which focus upon specific words, their origin, meaning, relationship to other ANE languages.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Karl:

You wrote: “Egyptian records are irrelevant to this discussion, as they don’t mention that area of the Levant until much later, long after Abraham.”

That’s precisely the point! There’s no there there at the Dead Sea, per Egyptian records. That’s because there’s no there there.

Egyptian records have plenty to say about the Shasu and other ne’er-do-wells in and near the Dead Sea. But nothing about cities or being “well watered” or being attractive or being wealthy. That is as opposed to the Eastern Jezreel Valley, which fits all those categories in spades -- both per Egyptian records, and everyone else’s records as well.

There’s no there there at the Dead Sea. The grand city of Sodom, where Lot lived the soft city life, has nothing whatsoever to do with the desolate Dead Sea area, which had no grand cities. Rather, Lot’s adopted hometown of Biblical “Sodom” is historical Shunem in the Eastern Jezreel Valley.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by kwrandolph »

Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:

You wrote: “Egyptian records are irrelevant to this discussion, as they don’t mention that area of the Levant until much later, long after Abraham.”

That’s precisely the point! There’s no there there at the Dead Sea, per Egyptian records.
Oh, so you admit that the Egyptian records are defective as far as the Levant is concerned at the time of Abraham? Because archaeology shows that there were cities in what then were rich, fertile crop lands. So which am I to believe—Egyptian records which are known to have been distorted by Manetho and his disciples, or the findings of archaeology?

After all, Sodom and its environs had been destroyed around a century before Djoser (Zoser) ascended the throne in Egypt.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by Jim Stinehart »

If we look at “the Egyptian records…as far as the Levant is concerned at the time of Abraham”, we can, at long last, find Gomorrah.

The text says that (i) Sodom was in the kikkar of the Jordan, (ii) that several cities in the kikkar of the Jordan were destroyed by fire, and that (iii) Gomorrah was destroyed by that same fire. But the text does n-o-t say that Gomorrah itself was literally located in the kikkar of the Jordan. It wasn’t. Rather, Gomorrah was historically located about a day’s walk west of Shunem/Sodom, just west of the Eastern Jezreel Valley in the western Jezreel Valley (not too far from Megiddo).

To find historical Gomorrah, we must first start with Biblical “Aner” at Genesis 14: 13, and figure out who he is historically.

1. Biblical “Aner” = Historical Hurrian Princeling Tagi

Abram is in covenant relationship with historical Milk-i-ilu the Amorite at Genesis 14: 13, who is Biblical Mamre the Amorite. (The historical name “Milk-i-ilu” is honored at Genesis 46: 17, where it immediately follows the XBR root of “Hebron”. Milk-i-ilu in Year 12 [one year before the “Year 13” explicitly referenced at Genesis 14: 4] ruled the Ayalon Valley from Gezer. The first Hebrews had just moved to the virtually vacant northeast corner of the Ayalon Valley, which was reduced to mere pastureland because of the perpetual drought conditions. The defective spelling of “Ayalon” is ’LN. Then add -Y- as xireq compaginis, and then finally “Mamre”, so that the full name at Genesis 13: 18, 14: 13 and 18: 1 is ’LN -Y- MMR’, and effectively means: “the Ayalon Valley, which at the time Abram first came there was ruled by Mamre/Milk-i-ilu the Amorite”.) Historically, we know that Milk-i-ilu/“Mamre” the Amorite was allied with tent-dwellers (habiru) and Hurrians and Canaanites, as accurately reported at Genesis 14: 13. One of the confederates of Biblical Mamre the Amorite at Genesis 14: 13 has the Patriarchal nickname “Aner”; that’s a Hurrian name, and it’s referencing Milk-i-ilu’s Hurrian father-in-law, Tagi. [As we will see, Tagi is the ruler of Gomorrah, and Tagi was, for awhile, in cahoots with Labaya of Shechem regarding Shunem/Sodom. Although “Mamre”/Milk-i-ilu the Amorite is portrayed in a very positive light in the Patriarchal narratives, his Hurrian father-in-law, Tagi/“Aner”, is not.)]

‘NR at Genesis 14: 13: “Aner” : E-na-ar. ‘N is E-ni or E-na in Hurrian, where Hebrew ayin is the Hurrian true vowel E as its own separate cuneiform sign (and hence almost certainly is its own separate syllable). Note the attested Hurrian names E-ni-ia and E-na-a-a (which mean: “God [is] Divine”). Nozadze, pp. 121, 125. The -R is a Hurrian suffix. For example, Fournet at p. 90 notes e-na-ar-xa as meaning “looking or acting like a god”; so we know that E-na can be followed by -ar as a suffix, which is ‘NR in alphabetical Hebrew.

In Hurrian, the name E-na-ar [KJV “Aner”] means: “Acting Like a God”.

Compare now the meaning of the Hurrian name “Tagi” that is attested in the Amarna Letters as the name of the Hurrian father-in-law of Milk-i-ilu the Amorite. It literally means “pure” (Richard Hess, “Amarna Personal Names” (1993), p. 154). As such, the likely intended meaning of “Tagi” is: “Pure as a God”. Note that the meaning is fairly similar to the meaning of E-na-ar [KJV “Aner”]: “Acting Like a God”.

2. Tagi [Biblical “Aner”] Is the Ruler of Gomorrah in Year 13

In “The Sacred Bridge” (2006), Anson Rainey on several occasions says that Hurrian princeling Tagi’s hometown was likely Tel ‘Amr:

“The location of Tagi himself could easily be at Tel el-‘Amr. …Tagi himself may have ruled at some other significant town such as…Tel el-‘Amr. …Tel ‘Amr existed at least from the Late Bronze…Age.” Pp. 90, 83, 150.

‘Amr is a dead ringer for “Gomorrah”, whose Hebrew spelling is ‘MRH.

The reason why scholars have never asked if historical ‘Amr is Biblical Gomorrah has nothing to do with linguistics (where the linguistic match is self-evident). Rather, university scholars have always followed Karl in positing that Gomorrah is located at, near or under the Dead Sea, even though there is no Biblical textual evidence whatsoever in the Patriarchal narratives to support that ubiquitous, but completely erroneous, claim. (I am excluding here any Biblical reference that includes the phrase “unto this day”, because that is the hallmark of a post-exilic addition, which as such cannot be trusted.)

For the first time in over 3,000 years, we on the b-hebrew list have found Gomorrah! It’s Tel-el-‘Amr, a day’s walk west of Shunem/Sodom, in the western Jezreel Valley.
The ruler of ‘Amr/Gomorrah in Year 13 was the Hurrian princeling Tagi (Biblical “Aner”). As we shall now see, Tagi was in cahoots for awhile with Labaya regarding that very messy business at Shunem/Sodom, where Lot gets caught in the middle -- in a thoroughly untenable position.

3. Tagi and Labaya Are Co-Conspirators Regarding Beth Shean and Shunem/Sodom

As to the linkage of Tagi and Labaya and Beth Shean (and hence Shunem), Rainey notes at p. 83: “Tagi is…credited with furnishing the personnel for the Egyptian garrison at Beth-shean. …The chance find of a clay cylinder from Beth-shean which bears a cuneiform inscription that is at least a partial excerpt from a letter sent by Tagi to Laba’yu provides further evidence for a connection between these two figures….”

The small Egyptian garrison of Beth Shean is a day’s walk east of Shunem/Sodom. Nadav Na’aman notes that Shunem would have been in the orbit of Egypt’s military garrison at Beth Shean: “The territory of Beth-shean must have included the Pharaonic lands in the Jezreel Valley (Na’aman 1988d).” Nadav Na’aman, “Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E.” (2005), p. 166.

Historian Eric Cline expands a bit on the linkage between Tagi and Labaya and Beth Shean and that messy Shunem matter:

“Labayu may have had spies active in nearby cities [in addition to Shunem], such as Beth Shean (Beisan), if a letter recently found at that site is any indication. This letter, sent to Labayu, describes the activities of Tagi, ruler of Gath Carmel [but whose home base, per Anson Rainey, was probably Tel Gomorrah/Tel ‘Amr], whose men were stationed in Beth Shean. It is usually thought to be an official letter sent between the two rulers, but it may actually be the furtive report of a spy in the employ of Labayu, keeping him up to date. At some point, either before attempting to capture Megiddo or after his attempt failed, and perhaps using intelligence gathered by informers, such as his man in Beth Shean, Labayu also attacked other nearby cities and towns in the Jezreel Valley.” Eric H. Cline, “The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze Age to the Nuclear Age” (2002), p. 39.

At the time of chapter 19 of Genesis (in mid-Year 13), Tagi and Labaya were furtively in cahoots together regarding Shunem/Sodom. That’s why the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives sees Tagi’s hometown of ‘Amr/Gomorrah as deserving to be destroyed by fire. Historical ‘Amr [Biblical “Gomorrah”], historical Shunem [Biblical “Sodom”], and as an un-named city of the kikkar of the Jordan, Beth Shean, are all portrayed in chapter 19 of Genesis as being righteously destroyed by divine fire. Why? Because Labaya, who conquered Shunem/Sodom, was in cahoots with Tagi of ‘Amr/Gomorrah, in attempting to form an independent state including the entirety of the Jezreel Valley, in defiance of Egypt. That attempt included the drastic expedient of burning Beth Shean to the ground in Year 13, with part of Shunem/Sodom and/or its fields also being consumed by fire.

Meanwhile, the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives for his part wanted pharaoh Akhenaten to remove the first Hebrews’ local nemesis, Yapaxu, as the new ruler in the Ayalon Valley where the Hebrews were sojourning. So the early Hebrew author is desperate to insist that the Hebrews themselves do not sympathize with Labaya’s ill-fated attempt to create a new, independent state in central Canaan. And the early Hebrew author both wants to portray Abraham’s nephew Lot as being more or less innocent in that whole messy affair at Shunem/Sodom, yet still and all Lot deserves to be reduced to living in a cave at the Hill of Morieh for failing to procure corvee labor to tend pharaoh Akhenaten’s private estate fields at Shunem/Sodom, as Lot had promised. (In fact, at the 11th hour, Tagi himself realized that Labaya was doomed, when Labaya attacked but failed to capture Megiddo. Tagi somehow managed to disassociate himself from Labaya at the last moment, so that Tagi was not branded a criminal by pharaoh Akhenaten. But the early Hebrew author of the Patriarchal narratives well knew that Tagi had been a co-conspirator with Labaya regarding this matter, as long as it looked like Labaya might prevail.)

* * *

So finally we see the historical reason why Gomorrah features prominently in the fiery destruction portrayed in chapter 19 of Genesis. Just look to Tel el-‘Amr/Gomorrah in the western Jezreel Valley, in Year 13, and it’s right there. Just like Shunem/Sodom, the fiery destruction of the cities of the kikkar of the Jordan, and all the townspeople of Shunem/Sodom being implacably opposed to Lot’s two guests. It’s all historical. The key is simply to think Year 13 and the lush, “well-watered” Jezreel Valley, which could be seen by Lot from Baal Hazor. Forget about the totally irrelevant, desolate Dead Sea! (There’s no there there.)

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by kwrandolph »

Jim Stinehart wrote:If we look at “the Egyptian records…as far as the Levant is concerned at the time of Abraham”, we can, at long last, find Gomorrah.
Oh? Does that site meet the following requirements?

• Time: final destruction was 100–150 years before Pharaoh Djoser (Zoser) ascended the throne
• Place: before destruction—fertile
• Place: after destruction—sterile desert even centuries later
• Situation: destroyed by conflagration that extended to the fields around the city
• Situation: conquered with a layer of destruction within a few decades of final destruction

If any one of the above conditions is not met, then you wasted your time writing the rest of the essay, and I didn’t waste my time because I didn’t read it.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Karl:

You wrote: “Oh? Does that site [Tel ‘Amr as Gomorrah] meet the following requirements?

[1] • Time: final destruction was 100–150 years before Pharaoh Djoser (Zoser) ascended the throne
[2] • Place: before destruction—fertile
[3] • Place: after destruction—sterile desert even centuries later
[4] • Situation: destroyed by conflagration that extended to the fields around the city
[5] • Situation: conquered with a layer of destruction within a few decades of final destruction”

1. Pharaoh Djoser lived in the Early Bronze Age [3rd Dynasty/Old Kingdom], which was the wettest and best climate Canaan ever had in 5,000 years of human history. That’s not the Patriarchal Age! Abram experiences a drought-famine in southern Canaan and must go to Egypt to avoid it. Isaac experiences a drought-famine in southern Canaan and initially plans to go Egypt to avoid it, but ends up going, per divine advice, to GRR/Gaririee/Galilee to avoid it [where the ruler, per the Amarna Letters, in Year 13 was Abimelek]. Jacob experiences a drought-famine in southern Canaan and ends up leading all the Hebrews to Egypt to avoid it. That cannot possibly be the Early Bronze Age, when Canaan was so wet and rich that it was equal in power to Egypt itself.

Rather, the perpetual drought or semi-drought experienced by the Patriarchs in southern Canaan mandates that the Patriarchal Age was the Late Bronze Age, which was the driest period in Canaan’s long history. How bad was the drought-famine in Year 13 in the Ayalon Valley, where the Patriarchs sojourned? Here’s what the new (evil) ruler, Yapaxu, of the Ayalon Valley says to Pharaoh Akhenaten about that: “Message of Yapaxu, the ruler of Gazru [Gezer, the capital city of the Ayalon Valley]…. May the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord, my god, know that the means of subsistence have disappeared from my country [the Ayalon Valley], and indeed I have nothing at all.” Amarna Letter EA 300.

2. Yes, Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah was fertile before destruction. It’s in the western Jezreel Valley, and the Jezreel Valley is the most fertile place in all of Canaan. Always has been, always will be. Meanwhile, as to the Dead Sea, there’s no there there. Never has been, never will be.

3. “after destruction—sterile desert even centuries later”. The Patriarchal narratives say nothing of the kind. The Amarna Letters are replete with references to cities being burned by fire. But that doesn’t make a fertile valley “sterile desert even centuries later”, which never happened historically. Nor does anything in the Patriarchal narratives say that.

4. “destroyed by conflagration that extended to the fields around the city”. Many scholars have opined that such was the case for Shunem in or about Year 13. I see Shunem as being Biblical Sodom. Destruction by fire is verified archaeologically “in Late Amarna” for Beth Shean, which I see as being Year 13. We do not know if Tel ‘Amr/Gomorrah was or was not burned to the ground in Year 13: we have no solid non-biblical information one way or the other as to that. But what we do know is that in Year 13 its ruler, Tagi, was in cahoots with Labaya, and that their actions are closely tied to the fiery destructions of Beth Shean and Shunem/Sodom, as I set forth in a prior post.

5. “conquered with a layer of destruction within a few decades of final destruction”. Not sure what you mean by that. Historically, after a city was burnt by fire, it would usually later be re-built. For example, we know for sure that the small Egyptian garrison of Beth Shean was destroyed three times in the Late Bronze Age, and each time it was soon rebuilt. Though some fine fields near Beth Shean were likely burnt at the same time, they would simply be re-cultivated the next year. Fiery destruction of fields and cities was routine in the ancient world, and very rarely was permanent.

For example, the Bekaa Valley in eastern Lebanon was always the breadbasket of Lebanon, even though during the Amarna Age there are many reports of cities being burnt there: “Message of Bieri, your servant, the ruler of Hasabu [in the southern Bekaaa]. …Etakama [Biblical “Arioch”]…set the cities of the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord, on fire.” Amarna Letter EA 174. “Message of Ildayyi, your servant, the ruler of Hasi [Biblical “Hazezontamar, in the northern Bekaa]. … Etakama [Biblical “Arioch”]…set the cities of the king [pharaoh Akhenaten], my lord, on fire.” Amarna Letter EA 175. “Look, we are in Amqu [the Bekaa Valley],…and Etakama...assisted the troops of Hatti [the Hittites], and set the cities of the king, my lord, on fire.” Amarna Letter EA 176. “Etakama…assisted the troops of Hatta [the Hittites], and set the cities of the king, my lord, on fire.” Amarna Letter EA 363.

The point is that in the Amarna Age, cities were routinely set on fire, but that did not mean permanent destruction. Nothing in the Patriarchal narratives says, suggests, or implies permanent destruction. Rather, here’s what Genesis 19: 25, 28 says: “25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain [KKR/kikkar (of the Jordan)], and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. …28And [Abraham] looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain [KKR/kikkar (of the Jordan)], and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.”

Nothing is said in the Patriarchal narratives about “after destruction—sterile desert even centuries later”. Plus, no area southeast, south or southwest of the Dead Sea could be said to be part of the “Jordan” in Biblical usage. Nor could any such area be seen from a mountain near Bethel. Your theory of the case simply cannot be squared with what the Biblical text says.

Karl, there’s no there there at the Dead Sea. There’s no way that Lot would have sought the soft city life in the desolate Dead Sea area.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by kwrandolph »

Jim Stinehart wrote:Karl:

You wrote: “Oh? Does that site [Tel ‘Amr as Gomorrah] meet the following requirements?

[1] • Time: final destruction was 100–150 years before Pharaoh Djoser (Zoser) ascended the throne
[2] • Place: before destruction—fertile
[3] • Place: after destruction—sterile desert even centuries later
[4] • Situation: destroyed by conflagration that extended to the fields around the city
[5] • Situation: conquered with a layer of destruction within a few decades of final destruction”

1. Pharaoh Djoser lived in the Early Bronze Age [3rd Dynasty/Old Kingdom],
You think I don’t know that?

Yet Sodom and its environs had been sterile ruins for already over a century by the time he ascended the throne.
Jim Stinehart wrote:which was the wettest and best climate Canaan ever had in 5,000 years of human history.
Abraham had hundreds of slaves, therefore thousands of head of livestock, yet he could stay in one place apparently for weeks at a time while still finding enough grazing for his livestock. There were perennial rivers with Nile perch and crocodiles where today are dry arroyos. But even those good times don’t preclude the possibility of a rare drought, of which only one is mentioned during Abraham’s lifetime, and only one other mentioned during Isaac’s lifetime.

Then during Pharaoh Djoser’s reign when Jacob was an old man, there was a drought mentioned in Egyptian records and in the Bible lasting seven years. The first grand vizier had something to do with alleviating the effects of the drought. Egyptian records are very poor on the details, written long afterwards and sometimes giving contradicting details with already accretions of legends, Genesis sparing but clear. That grand vizier was also foreign born and lived to the age of 110 years old.

I didn’t waste my time reading the rest of your essay as the next sentence I did read contradicted the Biblical record, therefore I stopped reading.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Karl:

You wrote: “[In Early Bronze Age Canaan, t]here were perennial rivers with Nile perch and crocodiles where today are dry arroyos. But even those good times don’t preclude the possibility of a rare drought, of which only one is mentioned during Abraham’s lifetime, and only one other mentioned during Isaac’s lifetime. Then during Pharaoh Djoser’s reign when Jacob was an old man, there was a drought mentioned in Egyptian records and in the Bible lasting seven years.”

There might be “a rare drought” in Early Bronze Age Canaan, but given “perennial rivers with Nile perch and crocodiles” in Early Bronze Age Canaan: (i) there’s no way that Abram, having just now arrived in southern Canaan from Syria, would have to go to Egypt to avoid such a drought-famine; and (ii) there’s no way that Isaac would have to think about going to Egypt to avoid a drought-famine (until YHWH directs Isaac to go to a different place); and (iii) there’s no way that Jacob/“Israel” would have to lead all the Hebrews out of beloved Canaan to go to Egypt to avoid the drought-famine, after only two years of drought (to that point) in Canaan. Not.

The poor, drought-prone climate portrayed by the Patriarchal narratives is absolutely incompatible with the wet and wonderful climate of Early Bronze Age Canaan. Rather, it matches perfectly to the dry, drought-prone Late Bronze Age in general, and to Year 13 in the Ayalon Valley in particular -- the worst climate Canaan has had in 5,000 years of human history. T-h-a-t is the Patriarchal Age, when the northeast Ayalon Valley where the Patriarchs sojourned had lost 90% of its Middle Bronze Age population, due largely to the great deterioration in the climate. That’s why Abram can simply move in to the Patriarchs’ Hebron, without having to move anybody out or pay for grazing rights or anything of the sort. In Year 12 in Late Amarna, when Abram got there, the northeast Ayalon Valley historically was essentially vacant, and had reverted to pastureland, even though during all normal time periods (any time except the Late Bronze Age) it was great for viticulture and all sorts of agricultural endeavors.

The key to seeing this is to note that each of three successive generations of Patriarchs is portrayed as facing such a terrible drought-famine in unusually dry southern Canaan that each has to contemplate leaving Canaan to go to Egypt to avoid that drought-famine, which Abram and, most famously, Jacob/“Israel” actually do. That’s got the Late Bronze Age written all over it in spades, and cannot apply to the abnormally wet and wonderful climate of the Early Bronze Age.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by Jim Stinehart »

In determining the location of Sodom, we must note that in chapter 13 of Genesis, Lot sees the Eastern Jezreel Valley, not the southern Dead Sea area.

Genesis 13: 10-12 says that Lot s-a-w the KKR/kikkar of the Jordan, and chose to live there upon separating from his uncle Abram at Bethel, on basis of what he s-a-w:

“10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld [YR’ : “saw”] all the plain [KKR/kikkar] of Jordan, that it was well watered every where…. 11Then Lot chose him all the plain [KKR/kikkar] of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east…. 12 Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain [KKR/kikkar (of the Jordan)], and pitched his tent toward Sodom.”

Remember, Lot and Abram had just come from Syria. They had passed by the Jezreel Valley, so by seeing Mt. Gilboa and the Hill of Morieh from that mountaintop (which was probably Baal Hazor), Lot could effectively see the Eastern Jezreel Valley that lies between those two high spots on either side of the lush, well-watered Eastern Jezreel Valley that was the breadbasket of central Canaan. But Lot had never been south, southwest or southeast of the Dead Sea, so he could not “see” those places by reference to the northern half of the Dead Sea generally.

If we are paying attention to what the text of chapter 13 of Genesis clearly says, then we have to pay particular attention to what Lot could see from a high spot near Bethel (which very likely was Baal Hazor, 5 miles northeast of Joshua’s Bethel, since Baal Hazor/Mt. Hazor/Tel Asur has the best panoramic view of Canaan, whereas no such view is possible at Joshua’s Bethel).

None of the three traditional sites of Sodom can be seen from Bethel or Baal Hazor. There is a very good view of the northern edge of the Dead Sea. Much of the Dead Sea, but not all of it, can be seen after a fashion from such site.

1. Jebel Usdum. Located on the south by southwest corner of the Dead Sea. As such, it’s too far away to be seen (unless one is looking at a towering mountain, namely Mt. Hermon in southeastern Lebanon to the north, which can be seen from Baal Hazor). Equally importantly, the view of the south by southwest corner of the Dead Sea is completely blocked by the mountainous area of Masada.

2. Arabah. That is south of the Dead Sea. Since the southern edge of the Dead Sea cannot be seen from Bethel or Baal Hazor, the low-lying valley south of the southern edge of the Dead Sea, that is the Arabah, cannot be seen.

3. Oases Southeast of Dead Sea. That’s way too far away to be seen, being much farther away than #1 or #2, for a low-lying area. Since one cannot see the far southeast corner of the Dead Sea, one cannot see the low-lying oases beyond there.

Lot could see Mt. Gilboa and the Hill of Morieh from Baal Hazor, and hence Lot could see the Eastern Jezreel Valley (whose river flows into the Jordan River, hence the reference to “Jordan”). By contrast, Lot could not see any of the traditional sites of Sodom located, respectively, on the far south by southwest edge of, south of, or on the far southeast edge of, the Dead Sea.

The following three items -- (i) the reference to “Jordan”, (ii) what Lot could “see”, and (iii) the fact that Lot went “east” from Bethel to the Jordan River -- mean that only the following two places are possible for the location of Lot’s adopted hometown city in the district of Sodom: (1) the Jordan River Valley proper, or (2) the Greater Jordan River Valley, namely the Eastern Jezreel Valley. No other locations can match what that text of chapter 13 of Genesis clearly says. As to the Jordan River Valley proper, however, it did not have grand cities that would attract Lot, and was not lush. That leaves the Greater Jordan River Valley, namely the Eastern Jezreel Valley, that fits all the requirements. It’s an integral part of the “Jordan”, because the Harod River flows through it eastward into the Jordan River. It’s the breadbasket of central Canaan, with the district of Sodom there having grand cities and wealth galore. It can be seen from Baal Hazor near Bethel. And the way to lay claim to the entire Greater Jordan Valley is to walk dead east from Bethel to the Jordan River, which is precisely what Lot does.

Thus everything in chapter 13 of Genesis fits the Eastern Jezreel Valley as the locale of the Sodom that is the district that contains Lot’s adopted hometown city in Canaan. By stark contrast, no area south, southwest or southeast of the Dead Sea can possibly, under any circumstances, meet the clear requirements of chapter 13 of Genesis regarding which places are possible for the locale of Lot’s Sodom.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
kwrandolph
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by kwrandolph »

Jim Stinehart wrote:There might be “a rare drought” in Early Bronze Age Canaan, but given “perennial rivers with Nile perch and crocodiles” in Early Bronze Age Canaan: (i) there’s no way that Abram, having just now arrived in southern Canaan from Syria, would have to go to Egypt to avoid such a drought-famine; and (ii) there’s no way that Isaac would have to think about going to Egypt to avoid a drought-famine (until YHWH directs Isaac to go to a different place); and (iii) there’s no way that Jacob/“Israel” would have to lead all the Hebrews out of beloved Canaan to go to Egypt to avoid the drought-famine, after only two years of drought (to that point) in Canaan. Not.
Were you there? Did you talk with Abram to ask why he chose to go to Egypt instead of another region? Did you discuss with Jacob why he chose to go to Egypt when he did? Are you a sheep herder knowledgeable about the effects of drought on normally lush grasslands? (I know you’re just an urban lawyer.) Have you ever eaten fresh wheat from a ripe field not yet harvested (chewy and sweet), or milked a cow, or gathered eggs, seen a pig slaughtered and sausage made, killed, defeathered and prepared a chicken for dinner (be careful to remove the gall bladder so it doesn’t ruin the meat), well I could go on?

In short, why should I believe a word you write? When all I see is a fertile imagination based on ignorance? A fertile imagination that contradicts recorded history?

Well, I grew up in the country, well, several countries as my father kept moving—the corn and soybeans of the U.S. Midwest, to the vineyards of Germany, the pecan orchards and cotton fields of the Southwest, wheat fields and high mountain pastures of Switzerland, rice paddies, banana trees and aquaculture of southern China, in a Mediterranean climate such as what is found in Israel I’ve seen a seven year drought where not a drop of rain fell, not one drop, nothing not irrigated grew after the first couple of years, followed by wet years where the hills turn green with grasses up to over six feet high, in short, even though I now reside in a city, I’m still a country boy at heart. In short, your urban lawyer claims are just not believable.

The worst part is that you think you can willy nilly contradict the historical record and expect other people will believe you (NOT). This is why you have yet to get a single person to agree with you.

Well, I’m finished with this thread. You haven’t provided one iota of believable evidence to back up your claims. You can write all the essays you want, I won’t waste my time to read them.

Karl W. Randolph.
Jim Stinehart
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:33 am

Re: Sodom: Location, Historical Destruction, What Lot Did T

Post by Jim Stinehart »

Karl:

You wrote: “Were you there? Did you talk with Abram to ask why he chose to go to Egypt instead of another region? Did you discuss with Jacob why he chose to go to Egypt when he did?”

No, I’m relying on what the Biblical text says, not on my being born and raised in Fort Dodge, Iowa to a mother who grew up on a farm in eastern Iowa, or on spending summer weeks on my cousins’ farm in southern Minnesota.

In considering why Abram went to Egypt, note that Abram has left Bethel, and is on the Diagonal Route through the Shephelah. The first region he traverses is the Ayalon Valley, where he will end up sojourning after separating from Lot when they return to Bethel. Abraham only leaves the Ayalon Valley when Lot’s district of Sodom has gone up in smoke. Then not asking if Lot avoided that fiery inferno (which Lot did, but Abraham no longer cares about that), much less trying to find Lot in a cave in the Hill of Morieh and give Lot a helping hand (which Abraham no longer cares about trying to do), Abraham i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e-l-y heads north to GRR : GLL : GLLY; Gariree : Galilee. Why? So that Abraham can now perfect his claim to a-l-l of Canaan, rather than any longer being temporarily limited to the southern one-third of Canaan. Abram had provisionally granted the northern 2/3 of Canaan to Lot, who represented the senior line of Terah’s descendants in Canaan, since Lot’s father was Terah’s firstborn son. Abram knew that it would eventually turn out that Lot would end with no rights to Canaan, because YHWH had promised Abram and his descendants all of Canaan, but Lot knew nothing of that. Note that the entire story makes complete sense, if and only if Lot went n-o-r-t-h to the Eastern Jezreel Valley upon splitting from his uncle, thereby temporarily claiming the northern 2/3 of inland Canaan.

1. But back to the question of why Abram went to Egypt:

Genesis 13: 8-10 “8 And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent…. 9 And Abram journeyed [on the Diagonal Route that starts with the Ayalon Valley and proceeds through the Shephelah], going on still toward the south. 10 And there was a famine in the land [of Canaan]: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land [of Canaan].”

Genesis 13: 10 says that Abram went to Egypt to avoid a terrible drought-famine in southern Canaan: “10 And there was a famine in the land [of Canaan]: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land [of Canaan].”

How could the text possibly be clearer than that? That makes no sense in the wet and wonderful climate of the Early Bronze Age, which was the wettest and best climate Canaan ever had in 5,000 years of human history. But it makes perfect sense in the drought-plagued Late Bronze Age, which was the driest and worst climate Canaan ever had in 5,000 years, especially Year 13 in the Ayalon Valley.

2. Jacob goes to Egypt for the same reason:

Genesis 42: 1-3: “Now when Jacob saw that there was corn in Egypt, Jacob said unto his sons, Why do ye look one upon another? 2 And he said, Behold, I have heard that there is corn in Egypt: get you down thither, and buy for us from thence; that we may live, and not die. 3 And Joseph's ten brethren went down to buy corn in Egypt.”

Genesis 43: 1-2: “And the famine was sore in the land [of Canaan]. 2 And it came to pass, when they had eaten up the corn which they had brought out of Egypt, their father said unto them, Go again, buy us a little food.”

Genesis 45: 6-11: “6 [Joseph said to his half-brothers who had come to Egypt to buy food:] For these two years hath the famine been in the land: and yet there are five years, in the which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. 7 And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. 8 So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. 9 Haste ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt: come down unto me, tarry not: 10 And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy herds, and all that thou hast: 11 And there will I nourish thee; for yet there are five years of famine; lest thou, and thy household, and all that thou hast, come to poverty.”

Once again, the text is clear. Jacob leads all the Hebrews out of beloved Canaan to go to Egypt for the same reason that Abram had gone to Egypt: because of a terrible drought-famine that was plaguing southern Canaan. Once again, that makes perfect sense in the drought-prone Late Bronze Age, especially Year 13, while not making sense in the wet and wonderful Early Bronze Age climate that Canaan had enjoyed umpteen centuries before the Patriarchal Age.

Karl, I’m the one who keeps quoting what the Biblical text of the Patriarchal narratives says, if you would read my posts. I’m not using my “fertile imagination”. No, I’m quoting the Biblical text.

The Biblical text of the Patriarchal narratives is incompatible with an Early Bronze Age historical time period. For one thing, the climate simply does not fit.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Post Reply